Message-ID: <6931ed7b1c7d5906bb595447fc24cd8a9b3e3d62.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ima: define a new signature type named
 IMA_VERITY_DIGSIG
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:14:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <YaWNX3nwslG/Q2aH@sol.localdomain>
References: <20211129170057.243127-1-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <20211129170057.243127-3-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <YaWNX3nwslG/Q2aH@sol.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 18:33 -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:00:55PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > To differentiate between a regular file hash and an fs-verity file digest
> > based signature stored as security.ima xattr, define a new signature type
> > named IMA_VERITY_DIGSIG.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> For this new signature type, what bytes are actually signed?  It looks like it's
> just the raw digest, which isn't sufficient since it is ambiguous.  It needs to
> include information that makes it clear what the signer is actually signing,
> such as "this is an fs-verity SHA-256 file digest".  See
> 'struct fsverity_formatted_digest' for an example of this (but it isn't
> necessary to use that exact structure).
> 
> I think the existing IMA signatures have the same problem (but it is hard for me
> to understand the code).  However, a new signature type doesn't have
> backwards-compatibility concerns, so it could be done right.

As this change should probably be applicable to all signature types,
the signature version in the  signature_v2_hdr should be bumped.  The
existing signature version could co-exist with the new signature
version.

thanks,

Mimi